ICA 2003 19
First, organizational members were dispersed throughout the university campus as well as
at sites off campus. Many people complained that they did not know or understand what was done
within the varying specialties of the department. Professional units engaged in their own
language that was sometimes not well understood by those in other units - the jargon of expertise
was a common complaint in the interviews. An integrated language designating insider status
among ITS members was not evident at the time of the interviews. Second, subcultural
boundaries tended to interfere with cultural integration. There was no apparent distinction for
being “in” ITS. At the summer picnic and holiday parties, employees congregated with their
former service groups. There was little indication of an ITS “culture.” In addition, allegations
were made of favoritism: certain employees were “in” with certain directors. Third, power and
status were other contested areas. Certain teams and work assignment were perceived as
privileged in status. In the state job descriptions, there is little potential for movement into higher
status positions without specific educational enhancements. At every level in the organizational
hierarchy, from staff members to the directors, allegations of turf battles were raised. Aggression
was not apparently well managed. Fourth, because many members were dispersed and often did
not know each other, it was difficult for this culture to develop norms for intimacy and friendship.
Fifth, rewards appeared to be few. Interviewees acknowledged that salaries were low, and
privileges of working at a university were perceived to be diminishing (for example, pets on site
were no longer permitted, nor were T-shirts with slogans
actions toward a “professionalism”
that were often resisted). Several interviewees commented that they were just waiting to retire.
Punishments for noncompliance were perceived as unfunded ideas, lack of recognition, and
negative, personal comments in group meetings. Finally, the cosmology of technology appeared
unaddressed in the new department. Leaders tended to emphasized faster performance of duties
and new skills. The beauty or satisfaction of a new idea, program, or process did not appear
Convention